I applied this patch yesterday. Let me know if there are any problems
with it.
Thanks,
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (12/03/2006):
> Quoting Ruben Porras ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
>
> > well, I think that when you have less translated strings as a limit, all
> > the autogenerated document is english. am I right?
>
>
> Yes. IIRC the limit is usually somethign like 80%
You can c
Quoting Ruben Porras ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> well, I think that when you have less translated strings as a limit, all
> the autogenerated document is english. am I right?
Yes. IIRC the limit is usually somethign like 80%
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (11/03/2006):
> On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 06:52:49PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> was heard to say:
> > Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (11/03/2006):
> > > Would I be correct in understanding that with this change, the
> > > French documentation
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 06:52:49PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (11/03/2006):
> > Would I be correct in understanding that with this change, the
> > French documentation is now autogenerated and hence should be removed
> > from
Am Samstag, den 11.03.2006, 18:52 +0100 schrieb Thomas Huriaux:
> Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (11/03/2006):
> > Would I be correct in understanding that with this change, the
> > French documentation is now autogenerated and hence should be removed
> > from version control?
>
> Yes, you'r
On Sat, Mar 11, 2006 at 06:52:49PM +0100, Thomas Huriaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
was heard to say:
> Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (11/03/2006):
> > Would I be correct in understanding that with this change, the
> > French documentation is now autogenerated and hence should be removed
> > from
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (11/03/2006):
> Would I be correct in understanding that with this change, the
> French documentation is now autogenerated and hence should be removed
> from version control?
Yes, you're right. It is autogenerated, using strings from the po file
if available, o
Would I be correct in understanding that with this change, the
French documentation is now autogenerated and hence should be removed
from version control?
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Daniel Burrows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (11/03/2006):
> Is po4a really suitable? The web page seems to say rather prominently
> that it can't handle XML properly.
If you mean the section "Unsupported formats" of po4a(7), this section
is very out of date. I have just told the maintainer about it.
--
Is po4a really suitable? The web page seems to say rather prominently
that it can't handle XML properly.
Daniel
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Am Montag, den 06.03.2006, 12:30 +0100 schrieb Thomas Huriaux:
> Attached is a new patch following the not-yet-released po4a guidelines
> (expected in po4a 0.24).
Daniel, you need to apply this, if I apply it without the necessary
changes to the debian dir, aptitude will not build anymore.
--
T
Quoting Thomas Huriaux ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Package: aptitude
> Version: 0.4.1-1
> Severity: wishlist
> Tags: patch l10n
>
> Hi,
>
> po4a (http://alioth.debian.org/projects/po4a) is a tool that allows you
> to keep up-to-date translations and eases the work of translators by
> using the po form
13 matches
Mail list logo
